New Age Atheism and The Image of Science in Public.

Turtwig

There can be no denying that there is a growing public mistrust and fear of science and the scientific method. Time and again, various groups with various agenda's do their utmost to subvert the scientific method just so that their ideological views can be viewed as science. But this isn't the topic of this thread, well party isn't. There is also some criticism being directed at so called New Age Atheists for helping drive the wedge between Science and Public mistrust even deeper. In your opinion do you think such criticisms are valid?

My opinion is that they are not, and more should be done to promote science and understanding not pathetic strawmans of ignorance. But is that opinion ideological, or practical? Scientists, are an minority, atheists are an even bigger minority, so what exactly, in your opinion is the best way to combat growing illiteracy in science? I'm afraid to say I haven't quite worked out an opinion on that one yet.

c_man

There is also some criticism being directed at so called New Age Atheists for helping drive the wedge between Science and Public mistrust even deeper. In your opinion do you think such criticisms are valid?

Possibly, but it is a undesired reaction to be sure. I mean take for instance Hawking coming out recently with his "no need for a creator in science" statement. He's "out" as an atheist, giving his own reasons for it which happen to involve science. Regular Holy Joe reads it and instantly Hawking is tarred with the brush of arrogant scientist and a seed sown in his mind.

so what exactly, in your opinion is the best way to combat growing illiteracy in science?

I'll admit my ignorance here, is science taught in primary schools? I remember we only started it in secondary education and everyone was in the same boat.

Dades

If there is a problem, it's not the "New Age Atheists" to blame - it's their detractors conflating science with what they perceive to be aggressive secularism.

Contrary to Carl Sagan's view of science as a "candle in the dark", people are being duped into thinking that science has some sort of agenda, a goal to strip common folk of their comfortable cultures and traditions.

IMO very few religious "believe" on any scientific level, so science is not going to change their views. Therefore, except for extreme case like creationism, it doesn't really need to be dragged into the debate and get tarred in the process. Hearts and (clear) minds are what will push forward secularism.

Beruthiel

We all need to buy one of these:

Mark Hamill

Malty_T wrote: »

There can be no denying that there is a growing public mistrust and fear of science and the scientific method. Time and again, various groups with various agenda's do their utmost to subvert the scientific method just so that their ideological views can be viewed as science. But this isn't the topic of this thread, well party isn't. There is also some criticism being directed at so called New Age Atheists for helping drive the wedge between Science and Public mistrust even deeper. In your opinion do you think such criticisms are valid?

In what way does "New Age Atheism" drive a wedge between Science and Public?

Malty_T wrote: »

My opinion is that they are not, and more should be done to promote science and understanding not pathetic strawmans of ignorance. But is that opinion ideological, or practical? Scientists, are an minority, atheists are an even bigger minority, so what exactly, in your opinion is the best way to combat growing illiteracy in science? I'm afraid to say I haven't quite worked out an opinion on that one yet.

Practical solution: Pretty much completely overhall the education system, putting emphasis on an understanding of the scientific method & peer review (just give people an understand of what they mean and why they are done), maths & statistics (get across the difference bewteen correlation and causation, explain what makes a good statistic study) and informal debating (make people think about things, teach them to recognise common logical fallacies and the importance of empirical evidence over emotive rhetoric). IMO, going for the kids is the best way, most people over 25 are no hopers.

Imparactical solution: Take away everything science has given them, until they learn how to properly appreciate it and be skeptical in the proper way.

amacachi

c_man wrote: »

I'll admit my ignorance here, is science taught in primary schools? I remember we only started it in secondary education and everyone was in the same boat.

Think our subject was called "Nature", was varied and very simple stuff about seasons, very basic astronomy and physics and biology that I can remember off the top of my head.

MrPudding

Beruthiel wrote: »

We all need to buy one of these:

Yeah. And one of those t-shirts too.

MrP

bnt

When a piece starts with "there can be no denying", I'm tempted to deny it, just for the hell of it. I agree with the basic points, but the spin is so visible I'm getting dizzy. :pac:

I don't think science needs much "promotion"; it needs to be taught, not as just another subject, but as the way to see the world as it is, rather than as we wish it could be. The whole world in which we live today was created by scientists: the concrete under your house,*the engine in your car, the road on which it drives, the electricity that powers your lights, the Internet that lets me write from here and have this read by you. It's not optional. :cool:

darjeeling

Malty_T wrote: »

There can be no denying that there is a growing public mistrust and fear of science and the scientific method. Time and again, various groups with various agenda's do their utmost to subvert the scientific method just so that their ideological views can be viewed as science. But this isn't the topic of this thread, well party isn't.

I know this is the off-topic topic of the thread, but I think the attempts at making ideological pseudoscience are actually a back-handed complement to the success of science.

Science works (as is eloquently stated above), and a lot of people who want to get with the modern world eagerly embrace it. Except where there are bits they don't like for itchy little ideological reasons. Here, though, our otherwise 21st Centurions have to pretend their objections are actually on scientific grounds, else people will point and laugh and they'll feel all uncomfortable and Stone-agey. [edit - I think this needs one of these: :pac:]

Turtwig

bnt wrote: »

When a piece starts with "there can be no denying", I'm tempted to deny it, just for the hell of it. I agree with the basic points, but the spin is so visible I'm getting dizzy. :pac:

I don't think science needs much "promotion"; it needs to be taught, not as just another subject, but as the way to see the world as it is, rather than as we wish it could be. The whole world in which we live today was created by scientists: the concrete under your house,*the engine in your car, the road on which it drives, the electricity that powers your lights, the Internet that lets me write from here and have this read by you. It's not optional. :cool:

I think you're missing an important point here. The science you listed is science that is never really going to conflict with an ideology, or at least is highly unlikely to. Thermodynamics unless you're talking free energy has a got a free ball park, so too has material sciences, chemistry, physics until you mention origins of the universe stuff in cosmology. Biology, Medicine and Climatology are the disciplines that are the most prone to corruption by ideological movements. Everything else should be more or less fine. Evolution is a huge issue, so is alternative medicines and Climate Change. I think more needs to be done in these fields to show how every day people have benefited from science in almost every disciple. I hypothesised in an earlier thread somewhere that the less the public known about a scientific issue the more likely it is to avoid having ideological confrontations. More to the point, minority opinion and dissent is vital to science, but when it gets swept over by an ideological push. . .


Oh and btw, would you be tempted to object to the phrase "There can be do denying that bnt is awesome person"?

pH

Malty_T wrote: »

I think you're missing an important point here. The science you listed is science that is never really going to conflict with an ideology, or at least is highly unlikely to. Thermodynamics unless you're talking free energy has a got a free ball park, so too has material sciences, chemistry, physics until you mention origins of the universe stuff in cosmology. Biology, Medicine and Climatology are the disciplines that are the most prone to corruption by ideological movements. Everything else should be more or less fine.

I think that if you look at history, not just the present day then there isn't any area of science that hasn't conflicted with an ideology and had someone, somewhere deny, corrupt, spin or try to censor.

On other notes, science was taught very well and my school, the core thing at the heart of science - the experiment was central to many lessons, and chemistry, physics and biology were quite hands on.

As for science's image, science is such an amorphous, I'm not sure anything can be done, as seen above "It works", if you embrace it at move forward you look like western Europe, if you reject it you look like Afghanistan.

And you've always got to consider that one of the solutions for the Fermi paradox is that before you get science advanced enough to travel interstellar distances, it provides the blueprint for a doomsday weapon capable of letting anyone destroy the planet

bnt

Malty_T wrote: »

I think you're missing an important point here. The science you listed is science that is never really going to conflict with an ideology, or at least is highly unlikely to.
...
Oh and btw, would you be tempted to object to the phrase "There can be do denying that bnt is awesome person"?

Last point first: yes, I would object, since it's definitely possible to deny that statement. Probably wrong, but possible.

That list was just a few examples, not intended to be exhaustive. If you firmly hold to the belief that PI = 3 (1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chronicles 4:2), then I'd love to see a car engine built to that principle. From a safe distance. This forum has already seen plenty of discussion on religious objections to medical procedures such as blood transplants or stem cell research.

rational

Malty_T wrote: »

Scientists, are an minority

Scientists are in a minority alright (thank God) but I dont think that there is a general mistrust of the scientific method, accept for far right religious nut jobs and they are in the minority.

rational

Malty_T wrote: »

Time and again, various groups with various agenda's do their utmost to subvert the scientific method just so that their ideological views can be viewed as science.

1. Can you give some examples of these groups. Other than US right wing christian fundementalists

2. Do you think they have any real impact on the general population

rational

Malty_T wrote: »

There can be no denying that there is a growing public mistrust and fear of science and the scientific method.

It that not a very very big generalisation?

IN responce to your point generally, I dont think people are mistrustful of science or the scientific method. They may have a mistrust in how scientific research is conducted and who controls and funds this research who sets the research agenda and what their motivation for research outcomes are. I think that is healthy sceptcism.

It would be nice to think that the science in general is free from the muddy hands of human curruption but like religion it gets currupted.

The Mad Hatter

rational wrote: »

1. Can you give some examples of these groups. Other than US right wing christian fundementalists

Anti-vaccine groups, anti-GM food groups, climate change deniers, the catholic church on the subject of condom use...

2. Do you think they have any real impact on the general population

In the case of the four I've mentioned, yes, huge.

mikhail

rational wrote: »

1. Can you give some examples of these groups. Other than US right wing christian fundementalists

Journalists.

2. Do you think they have any real impact on the general population

J. Baker, "The pertussis vaccine controversy in Great Britain, 1974-1986," Vaccine 21, pp. 4003-10, (2003).

This historical essay analyzes the role played by Great Britain in the pertussis vaccine controversy of the 1970s and 1980s. Public backlash against this vaccine not only took place earlier in Britain than the United States, but also was so widespread that a series of whooping cough epidemics soon followed. As with the more recent dispute involving measles–mumps–rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism, the United Kingdom played a primary role in defining, promoting, and ultimately exporting this controversy. This essay seeks to explain this phenomenon by situating it in Britain’s long history of suspicion regarding vaccines evident among both the public and the medical profession, a theme dating back to the compulsory vaccination laws of the 19th century. It argues that anti-vaccinationism, far from being simply a new development related to the public’s lack of awareness of childhood vaccine-preventable illness, actually represents a revival of a much older movement.

In 1974, a series of case studies in Britain suggested that a possible link between whooping cough vaccines and brain damage. The media ran and ran with the story. Within three years, vaccination rates for infants there fell from 77% to 33%. In 78, 82 and 85, there were whooping cough epidemics. A massive study of every infant hospitalised for acute neurological illness found that there was an increased risk due to the vaccine, but it was tiny. A major public awareness campaign gradually restored the vaccination rates.

The same story with the MMR vaccine. Tiny study claims link with autism. Major studies refute this, and the original study is shown to be flawed, manipulated and funded by a group of anti-vaccination freaks. MMR uptake has fallen in Britain from 92% to 73% (and further elsewhere). There was a mumps epidemic in 2005, and measles cases are rising steadily. There have been measles outbreaks in California and Japan.

rational

mikhail wrote: »

Journalists.


J. Baker, "The pertussis vaccine controversy in Great Britain, 1974-1986," Vaccine 21, pp. 4003-10, (2003).

In 1974, a series of case studies in Britain suggested that a possible link between whooping cough vaccines and brain damage. The media ran and ran with the story. Within three years, vaccination rates for infants there fell from 77% to 33%. In 78, 82 and 85, there were whooping cough epidemics. A massive study of every infant hospitalised for acute neurological illness found that there was an increased risk due to the vaccine, but it was tiny. A major public awareness campaign gradually restored the vaccination rates.

The same story with the MMR vaccine. Tiny study claims link with autism. Major studies refute this, and the original study is shown to be flawed, manipulated and funded by a group of anti-vaccination freaks. MMR uptake has fallen in Britain from 92% to 73% (and further elsewhere). There was a mumps epidemic in 2005, and measles cases are rising steadily. There have been measles outbreaks in California and Japan.

Interesting points and well made. Shows up sloppy sensationalist journalism and the affect this can have on the population. Not so sure it shows a mistrust of the scientfic method. In both cases people were reacting to flawed scientific research.

mikhail

rational wrote: »

Interesting points and well made. Shows up sloppy sensationalist journalism and the affect this can have on the population. Not so sure it shows a mistrust of the scientfic method. In both cases people were reacting to flawed scientific research.

Not quite. In the MMR case, they were responding to flawed research, but in both cases, they overreacted to results that a doctor would take as interesting and important enough to merit a large scale study, ignoring doctors' advise on the matter. They also ignored the medical consensus after those studies were performed - in the whooping cough case until a long and substantial government campaign, and in the MMR case they still are.

rational

mikhail wrote: »

Not quite. In the MMR case, they were responding to flawed research, but in both cases, they overreacted to results that a doctor would take as interesting and important enough to merit a large scale study, ignoring doctors' advise on the matter. They also ignored the medical consensus after those studies were performed - in the whooping cough case until a long and substantial government campaign, and in the MMR case they still are.

While I agree with you on this I think the public reaction was based on media sensationalism rather than a mistrust of the counter science.

robindch

rational wrote: »

Can you give evidence that this outbreak was connected to peoples mistrust of the scientific method?

The MMR vaccine-scare began with the publishing of Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent paper in the BMJ in 1998. The BMJ withdrew the paper and the co-authors resigned when it turned out that part of the funding for the "study" had come from lawyers acting on behalf of autistic children, who were looking for somebody to sue but lacked any scientific papers to make the link.

Since the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph took up the anti-vaxxer cause, measles has returned to the UK as a fatal disease and around six or eight children now lie dead, and an unknown number are permanently blind or deaf, on account of the lies that these publications have spread.

The mortality figures for measles are here:

http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814

nozzferrahhtoo

Malty_T wrote: »

so what exactly, in your opinion is the best way to combat growing illiteracy in science? I'm afraid to say I haven't quite worked out an opinion on that one yet.

I notice this thread has been cross posted on a couple of forums. I would have replied to this one and not the other had I seen this one first, but I will repeat what I posted there here:

Quite simply I think two things need to be done, though both are so essentially intertwined that they are two sides of the one coin. Anyone who has watched the same talks as I have on the net will probably recognise that I am paraphrasing this from another persons words. 10 points to the person who first guesses who!

First we need more Carl Sagans and Stephen J Goulds and Sir David Attenboroughs. Scientists are notoriously bad communicators. They have one of the best jobs in the world, they get to walk into a lab and ask themselves “What will I discover today?”. They have little reason to worry about communicating with the public. They just get on with it.

Secondly however scientists themselves need to reward more the ambassadors for science who actually do this. It is not generally known but Sagan and Gould were actually looked down on and derided by many of their peers as a fellow peer would a noble who “consorts with the common folk”. Scientists effectively look down upon popularises of science. People looked down at Gould for example because they considered themselves “more serious” evolutionary scientists while Gould simply wrote for the public. Writing popular science is looked down upon as being some sort of “low brow” version of being a scientist.

Some moves are indeed made in this direction, such as the creation of the “Charles Simoni chair for the public understanding of Science”. But this is simply not enough, much more needs to be done.

The only thing I would add to the words I have paraphrased from someone else is that a massive change is required in our own attitudes as people. It is seen as “admitting defeat” often to say “I do not know” and a problem with science often is that people will act like they know what they are talking about when they patently do not and they will churn out the most egregious nonsense calling it “science”. Those who dare to correct them are seen as arrogant and rude.

People quite literally do not like to be told what is true by other people because they feel like that other person thinks they are somehow "better" than them... an attitude we seriously need to destroy but is not helped at all by people who actually do posture and strut themselves because some actually do think they are "better" than others when they can show they know something someone else doesnt.

Yet on this very site for example, I had one person get angry at me for suggesting most people do not know what gravity actually is or where it comes from. How dare I say such a thing when surely “everyone knows” that we have gravity because “the earth is spinning”.

We have gravity because the earth is spinning? This is the most obscene nonsense I have ever read yet I was seen as the bad guy when I corrected the person in this and for suggesting most people actually do not understand the first thing about gravity. How dare I be right and presume to correct the errors of others??

DeVore

Getting back to the aul topic, you know, the OP and everyting...

I love shows like Mythbusters, Timewarp, Universe, How Stuff Works etc etc etc ... tons of them out there now. Great shows making science look fun and interesting. Yes, not every scientist gets to blow stuff up but they show that being rigourous can be interesting and introduce the basic concepts of good science like control groups and variable isolation.

Its a great time for science in the media in that regard.

DeV.

robindch

Discussion of the Vatican's war on condoms has been moved to here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056065397